I think the answer is quite simple; parents support this because it makes their life easier to never have to consider saying "no" and then spend the time explaining it. As a bonus, you really don't have to worry about that whole peer pressure thing anymore.
Personally, I disagree. When I was a child I was often told what not to do and it was remembered a whole lot longer than what I was told explicitly I could do, and I turned out fine.
>
Well, other than being an introverted, slashdot-reading, societal reprobate.
Well, like the subject line says, I've seen most of these problems in my discrete math class (I think I picked the right spelling). So, I thought I would give you the latest problem I was given, supposedly from a microsoft recruiting representative:
There are an unknown number of people in a line, each with a black or white hat. The person in the rear can see the hat colors of everyone ahead, but not behind or his own. So, a person comes along and asks each person from the rear to the front in order what color hat they are wearing, and if they are wrong or have to guess, they are killed. They can only say a hat color, and everyone else in the line can hear what they say, but cannot know if they are killed. However, they collude beforehand to come up with a way to save the maximum number of them, which is n-1, since the first person asked cannot possibly get his hat color correct. So, what strategy will yield n-1 lives saved?
I find it seriously doubtful that the next intel chip (at least the one that apple is planning to use) will use a translation layer. Think about it; if it had such a capability, why would they (Apple) go through all the trouble to program an incredibly slow emulator when they could pressure intel to make it processor/firmware reliant and avoid the panic from the intel switch? Granted, this may be the performance boost they are banking on in rosetta, but I still fail to see how it could not be completely confined to a lower level of the system and transparent, as well as make it better performing (I'm probably wrong, but I thought that Transmeta had a working PowerPC translator working for their chips, but maybe it was just hypothetical propaganda). So, either Apple is not being its typically self-centered, well, self, or they are pulling the ultimate double-reverse psychology marketing to make us exercise our (your) code foo and think there will be a nonexistent change! Seriously, though, why go through all this trouble when there exists a way to, with a bit more input from both parties, they could avoid this transition problem apple zealots (myself included)are squirming about? Unless IBM has some IP issues with its processors.....
Bashing and Speculation in 3.... 2.... 1.....
It doesn't necessarily suck, per se.
I've played the game, and had the same problems, due mostly to flooding the connection on the end I was on with two Xboxs having four players apiece. Generally, this model would work extremely well, and is basically the same as the old model but with a priority queue (as I understand it), and would decrease bandwidth usage and increase framerate. However, the main problem is that if you flood a connection, without a proper judge of speed, then you create an alternate world in your client a few seconds behind the actual occurence. Eventually this is solved by resetting everyone back to where the slowest player is.
However, with those network engines (once again, as I understand it), they still use the "transmit everything model," which doesn't lag much, but if it does stops everything in its tracks.
Long story short, it's just a tradeoff for bandwidth v. client consistency v. playability
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I disagree. When I was a child I was often told what not to do and it was remembered a whole lot longer than what I was told explicitly I could do, and I turned out fine.
> Well, other than being an introverted, slashdot-reading, societal reprobate.
There are an unknown number of people in a line, each with a black or white hat. The person in the rear can see the hat colors of everyone ahead, but not behind or his own. So, a person comes along and asks each person from the rear to the front in order what color hat they are wearing, and if they are wrong or have to guess, they are killed. They can only say a hat color, and everyone else in the line can hear what they say, but cannot know if they are killed. However, they collude beforehand to come up with a way to save the maximum number of them, which is n-1, since the first person asked cannot possibly get his hat color correct. So, what strategy will yield n-1 lives saved?
Bonus:
How is it done for m number of hat colors?
Good Luck!
I find it seriously doubtful that the next intel chip (at least the one that apple is planning to use) will use a translation layer. Think about it; if it had such a capability, why would they (Apple) go through all the trouble to program an incredibly slow emulator when they could pressure intel to make it processor/firmware reliant and avoid the panic from the intel switch? Granted, this may be the performance boost they are banking on in rosetta, but I still fail to see how it could not be completely confined to a lower level of the system and transparent, as well as make it better performing (I'm probably wrong, but I thought that Transmeta had a working PowerPC translator working for their chips, but maybe it was just hypothetical propaganda). So, either Apple is not being its typically self-centered, well, self, or they are pulling the ultimate double-reverse psychology marketing to make us exercise our (your) code foo and think there will be a nonexistent change! Seriously, though, why go through all this trouble when there exists a way to, with a bit more input from both parties, they could avoid this transition problem apple zealots (myself included)are squirming about? Unless IBM has some IP issues with its processors..... Bashing and Speculation in 3.... 2.... 1.....
It doesn't necessarily suck, per se. I've played the game, and had the same problems, due mostly to flooding the connection on the end I was on with two Xboxs having four players apiece. Generally, this model would work extremely well, and is basically the same as the old model but with a priority queue (as I understand it), and would decrease bandwidth usage and increase framerate. However, the main problem is that if you flood a connection, without a proper judge of speed, then you create an alternate world in your client a few seconds behind the actual occurence. Eventually this is solved by resetting everyone back to where the slowest player is. However, with those network engines (once again, as I understand it), they still use the "transmit everything model," which doesn't lag much, but if it does stops everything in its tracks. Long story short, it's just a tradeoff for bandwidth v. client consistency v. playability